Politics, animals and O'Brienese

T ime once again to field questions from Nancy Naive, who poses a series of queries about local politics.

Ooh, I'm hearing about changes in Worcester. What's going on?

Well, Nancy, City Manager Michael O'Brien revealed that WinnCompanies approached him about a possible job offer, but I wouldn't worry. For reasons beyond understanding, O'Brien loves this city so much that he'd leave only at gunpoint. He's smart, efficient, and still has most of his hair. We're lucky to have him. I don't think he's going anywhere, but I happen to be frequently wrong.

The job offers must be tempting.

Sure, especially when you consider the plum positions on the table: Vice President in Charge of Blaming Others When Things Go Wrong, Senior Vice President of Bureaucratic Memo Enhancement, and Assistant President in Charge of Trusting No One But Yourself.

Why did he announce the potential job offer if he's not taking it?

Officially, the disclosure is a state requirement. Unofficially, it's an election year. O'Brien is popular with voters, and he wants the City Council to extend his contract, and any councilor who bucks him would receive even fewer votes than perennial candidate Bill Coleman.

How come Coleman never gets elected?

He's a nice, affable guy, but he doesn't tackle tough issues and no one knows what he stands for. In other words, he'd make an excellent Worcester mayor.

How can the council allow O'Brien to conduct city business with the same company that's offering him a job?

Yeah, that's a big conflict. Again, Nancy, it's an election year, and Michael O'Brien can do whatever he likes. He could suggest that councilors set fire to Phil Palmieri's hair and they'd immediately start a bonfire, not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas. He could encourage Winn to establish a group home on Salisbury Street for pyromaniac pedophiles with substance abuse issues. He could appoint himself Czar for Life, although the title would be redundant. He could replace the Pledge of Allegiance at council meetings with mandatory twerking.

Wow. That's a lot of power.

It is, Nancy. The City Council recently came up with a feel-good idea for a mediation program to deal with foreclosures, and O'Brien balked because, well, banks don't give a fig what a bunch of local politicians think about their foreclosure process. But the council insisted, so O'Brien wrote this: "Combined with the expected legal ruling on the pending Springfield litigation and the reduction in foreclosure actions, these factors dictate that the city should delay any determination of a local foreclosure ordinance until after the first of January 2014."

What does that mean?

I happen to be conversant in O'Brienese. In layman's terms, it means, "I will attempt to enact this stupid ordinance at the precise moment that monkeys fly out of my pants."

That reminds me — didn't I hear something about circus animals?

You did. In its futile search for relevance, the City Council is mulling a resolution to bar circuses with animals from Worcester, because, in the words of one councilor, "Dealing with street repairs gets boring, and this gives us another opportunity to ban something."

How odd!

Speaking of oddities, a female activist has been traipsing around town topless to advocate for the right of women to bare their chests like men.

What's the reaction?

Women wouldn't be caught dead traipsing around town topless unless they were Kate Middleton trying to avoid the press. As for men, never have I seen such an enthusiastic embrace of a feminist cause. At City Hall, Councilor Michael Germain has suggested the immediate formation of a subcommittee to further study the issue.